A Memo to Jared

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A recent report indicates that President Trump’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner suggested that then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other policy makers read a January 2018 Wall Street Journal piece regarding the cutoff of American funding for UNRWA, the international agency for Palestinian ‘refugees.’ As authors of the piece referenced in the leak, we are flattered. With the administration’s much discussed peace plan to be announced in June, let us offer some last minute suggestions.

Information regarding President Trump’s “plan of the century” is vague, with Kushner and other administration sources saying only that it will require “compromises from both sides” and that in the words of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, it will “represent a significant change from the model that’s been used.”

Our first suggestion is therefore to not reveal the plan but to continue floating rumors and possibilities as a means of elucidating intentions.

Palestinian PM Shtayyah has already announced the plan will be “born dead” and that it is “financial blackmail.” But Shtayyah also hinted that the Palestinian Authority would seek to develop the Palestinian economy and to reduce dependence on Israel.

This leads to our next suggestion. Outside of the plan itself, American policy should offers development aid to specific sectors of the Palestinian economy in exchange for an enhanced version of the current status quo. Aid and normalization should be exchanged for security.

Importantly, US aid should not provided to the corrupt Palestinian Authority or even through traditional American means such as USAID, but rather through bilateral mechanisms directly to Palestinian industries through trade organizations and free trade agreements. Expediting visas, educational exchanges, arranging lines of credit, and other mechanisms that provide access to US markets will do more to develop industries and prosperity than top-down aid in the form of money to corrupt oligarchs.

The worst possible approach would be a titanic development plan such as that proposed by the RAND Corporation in 2007, which would sink billions into towns, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure. Elegant, artificial, and imposed, it would founder under its own costs and be crushed by corruption.

Wealth is no guarantee that animosity will be overcome. For example, Palestinian billionaire industrialist Munib al-Masri recently claimed that “No Palestinian can agree to less than what Yasser Arafat agreed to: the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem as the capital, and the return of the refugees. It’s impossible for anyone to agree.” Traditional elites will not accept new realities, not least that the ‘right of return’ for Palestinians to homes formerly in Israel is off the table. But new elites might.

As for borders, the recent claim by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat that in 2008, then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert offered PA President Mahmoud Abbas more than 100% of the West Bank, throwing in additional square kilometers so Abbas could claim victory, symbolizes the problem.

But such offers are no longer on the table, thanks to both the growth of Israeli communities across the Green Line and Hamas’s rule in Gaza. This is why any plan for Gaza must be separated from that for the West Bank.

Most Israelis have been vague about the plan, but the far right expressed strong opposition, particularly before the Israeli election. Palestinian rejection of the plan will further embolden the Israeli right and impel PM Benjamin Netanyahu to extend sovereignty to Israeli settlements or even annex the entire West Bank, while simultaneously empowering Islamists in Qatar, Iran, and elsewhere. Preemptive Palestinian rejection is a strategic mistake that gives up the chance for meaningful pressure on Israel regarding borders and Palestinian autonomy.

Global responses are also revealing. Outgoing French ambassador to the US Gérard Araud lauded Kushner’s approach but predicted its failure for being too pro-Israel. Araud also praised a host of Trump administration policy initiatives but predicted that “when Trump leaves power, everything will go back to business as usual. That’s the dream of Washington, DC.”

Our final proposal is therefore that the administration delay revealing the plan in order to continue taming the foreign policy “blob.”

The administration’s contrarian, transactional approach has yielded limited but real results, from boosting NATO funding to galvanizing opposition to Chinese expansionism. But Middle East policy inertia needs to be broken – witness continued US support for the Lebanese government controlled by Hezbollah.

Too many examples of internal opposition to Trump policies have emerged to give confidence that any new policies for the Middle East or anywhere else will be faithfully executed and not simply ignored or reversed.

The closure of the American consulate in East Jerusalem was an important step in seeing that US policy is promoted with one voice. The leak of Kushner’s memo, however, proves that more control is needed.

Continued peace and quiet would allow both Palestinians and Israelis to continue grassroots economic and social development. Paradoxically, the Kushner plan will not provide that. Fortunately, the Middle East and Washington DC provide many excuses for delay and for new approaches.

Alex Joffe is a senior non-resident fellow at the BESA Center and a Shillman-Ingerman Fellow at the Middle East Forum. Asaf Romirowsky is executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) and a senior non-resident fellow at the BESA Center and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum. They are the co-authors of Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief (2013).

Alex Joffe (Ph.D. University of Arizona). Specializes in ancient and modern Middle Eastern studies, American foreign policy, and American cultural politics.

Dr. Asaf Romirowsky

Dr. Asaf Romirowsky (PhD King's College London) is the Executive Director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), a fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Professor [Affiliate] at the University of Haifa. He specializes in the Arab-Israeli conflict and American foreign policy in the Middle East. Romirowsky is co-author of "Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief."

Featured Articles

Moderate leaders warn that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may turn from a national conflict into a religious one. Right-wing leaders claim it has been a religious conflict from the start. Both approaches have been applied to the Temple Mount crisis, and both are affected by a totalist perception of the understanding of the religious imperative.

The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.

North Korea’s nuclearization has implications for Israel’s nuclear deterrence posture. There are several plausible means by which a nuclear conflict could arise in the Middle East. It may be time to consider a phase-out of Israel’s “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” and to focus Israeli planning around evaluations of enemy rationality.

Former PM Ehud Barak’s arguments in favor of withdrawal from Judea and Samaria undercut Israel’s security and are a departure from the Oslo Accords’ security vision. Israel would be wise to present President Trump with actual facts on this issue.

Many American detractors of Israel begin by citing that Israel receives the lion’s share of US military aid. The very suggestion conjures the demon of an all-powerful Israel lobby that has turned the US Congress into its pawn. But these figures, while reflecting official direct US military aid, are almost meaningless in comparison to the real costs and benefits of US military aid – above all, American boots on the ground. In reality, Israel receives only a small fraction of American military aid, and most of that was spent in the US to the benefit of the American economy.

The Oslo diplomatic process is the starkest strategic blunder in Israel’s history and one of the worst calamities ever to have afflicted Israelis and Palestinians. Twenty three years after its euphoric launch on the White House lawn, the Oslo ‘peace process’ has substantially worsened the position of both parties, and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation ever more remote.